RESTRICTED  WORLD TRADE  
ORGANIZATION  S/WPDR/M/49 
11 April 2011 
 (11-1783) 
Working Party on Domestic Regulation  
  
 
REPORT OF THE MEETING HELD ON 23 MARCH 2011 
 
 1. The Working Party on Domestic Regulation (W PDR) held a meeting on 23 March 2011.  The 
agenda for the meeting was contained in  Airgram WTO/AIR/3718, dated 11 March 2011. 
2. The Chairman
 suggested adding an item to the Agenda on the re-appointment of the 
Chairman of the Working Party.  There was no objecti on by delegations to adding this first item to the 
agenda.  
3. The agenda was adopted  as amended.  
A. RE-APPOINTMENT OF CHAIRMAN  
4. The Chairman  was re-appointed and thanked the Me mbers for their trust and confidence. 
B. DEVELOPMENT OF REGULATORY DISCIPLINES UNDER GATS ARTICLE  VI:4  
5. The Chairman  noted that, since the last formal meet ing on 18 February, he had been engaged 
in intensive consultations on the draft text for the domestic regulation disciplines.  He provided a 
detailed report of the discussions, his assessment of the situation, so far, and the process ahead.  
6. He indicated that the outcome of the work  undertaken in small group consultations was 
contained in the Chairman's Consultative Note and the subsequent two revisions.1 
(RD/SERV/46/Rev.2).  In the interest of transpar ency, the Chairman had also provided the Members 
with his assessment of the situation.2 
7. The Chairman then emphasised some of the ma in points contained in his assessment.  Firstly, 
when Members asked for intensive drafting sessions, he had understood that delegations wanted to 
engage with a new "mind-set" that would reflect a serious attempt to work out compromises.  He 
regretted that he did not see this "mind-set" at work  during discussions.  He stressed that in the next 
phase of the drafting work during the week of 4 Ap ril, progress could only be made if Members were 
willing to come to the table with instructions on what  they can live with, and not just what they want.  
He stressed that if Members were unable to shift gear s, due to possible linkages to external factors or 
for any other reason, then they had to seriously consider whether they should be conducting further 
drafting sessions during the week of 4 April.  He already sensed some widening of gaps during the 
consultations. Without some change in the way dele gations engaged, this risk loomed ever larger.    
8. On the other hand, the Chairman recognized that the issues in the domestic regulation 
negotiations were technically difficult and sensitive.  He believed that a way to resolve them could be 
found, if there was the political will to do so.  More  specifically, he thought that the consultations 
                                                      
1 See Disciplines on Domestic Regulation pursuant to GATS Article VI:4, Chairman's Consultative 
note, Revision 2, RD/SERV/46/Rev.2, 23 March 2011. 
2 See Disciplines on Domestic Regulation pursuant  to GATS Article VI:4, Chairman's Assessment, 
RD/SERV/52, 23 March 2011. S/WPDR/M/49 
Page 2  
 
  helped Members to obtain a clearer sense that there we re two broad situations with respect to the draft 
disciplines:  First : paragraphs on which there was growing c onvergence on the intent of the discipline 
and general acceptance of the level of ambition to  be achieved, but differences in terms of the 
language to be used; and, second , paragraphs on which there were divergences with respect to both 
the intent of the discipline and the level of ambition to be achieved.  In his view, further drafting work 
could help resolve those paragraphs that fall into the first category, but it would not by itself settle 
differences in the second category, where there were clear divergences amongst Members on both the 
intent and ambition of the discipline under consider ation.  If Members were to get down to serious 
work in the week of 4 April, they had to address those situations characterised by the second category.  
9. For the week of 4 April, in order to go ah ead with a series of drafting sessions, Members had 
to be ideally in a position to formulate language th at best ensured clarity and legal soundness of the 
draft, based upon a common understanding of the intent  and ambition to be achieved.  Only in the few 
limited cases where this would not be possible th e use of brackets could be considered.  In the 
Chairman's view, a draft with brackets reflecting every language option was not a "bracketed" text, 
but a "collage" of proposals.  He believed that th is was not what Members wanted, and not what the 
Working Party had to produce and above all not wh at was expected at the stage.  The Chairman 
considered the week of 4 April as the last opportu nity before producing a text around mid-April. 
10. The Chairman finally highlighted the receipt of a communication from the delegations of 
Brazil, Canada and United States on the subject of a "necessity test".
3  He asked those delegations to 
introduce that communication, when they would express their general views on the process ahead.  
11. The Chairman then opened the floor. 
12. The representative of Brazil  introduced the communication by Brazil, Canada and the United 
States.  He noted that the "necessity test" was one of the most difficult issues in the current 
negotiations on disciplines for domestic regulation.  He noted that the three Members supporting this 
communication wanted to give their own views in response to what other Members had argued. The 
communication highlighted the importance of the right to regulate and that a "necessity test" would 
inevitably affect this right.  The disciplines s hould aim at avoiding undermining commitments under 
Article XVI and XVII.  Brazil noted that it was full y committed to this objective.  The tests that had 
been proposed by some Members did not focus on the objectives underlying Articles XVI and XVII of the GATS and would interfere in the leeway Memb ers have to choose measures that reflect societal 
values and norms.  As the content of the test had been mainly judicially-created, such test was not 
desirable in the light of the need to ensure lega l certainty. This would contradict the objective of 
creating clear and effective disciplines. It was reco gnized in the communication that such tests were 
present in other agreements. However, as noted in the Secretariat's Addendum on "necessity tests" in 
the WTO, the meaning of such a test would depend on the context and purpose of the provision in which it is used, and the meaning of one test c ould not necessarily be extended to tests in other 
provisions in the WTO Agreements.  Finally, the Members that supported the communication did not 
believe that Article VI:4 of the GATS mandated the Members in the Working Party on Domestic 
Regulation to include a necessity test in the future di sciplines. Article VI:4 merely set out the aims of 
future disciplines, but did not require that a "necessity test" was the result. 
13. The representative of Canada
 wanted to highlight clearly, on ce again, the shared concerns 
with the proposed necessity test.  She expressed th e belief that the Membership had reached near 
consensus on this issue several years ago, with  general agreement (apart from the few proponents) 
that it was not a feasible option. The representative recalled that Canada had repeatedly expressed its 
concerns in the previous years and emphasized the continued substantial conc erns with the test. For 
                                                      
3 See Communication from Brazil, Canada and the Un ited States, Views on the Issue of the Necessity 
Test in the Disciplines on Domestic Regulation, S/WPDR/W/44, 22 March 2011.  S/WPDR/M/49 
 Page 3 
 
 
  these reasons, she stated that Canada was dismayed to  see that, at this critical stage, the proponents of 
necessity continued to pay little attention to the very clear and direct advice that has been expressed so 
widely these past several years.  Therefore, Canada wa nted to restate its very firm view that it did not 
believe that the necessity test was an acceptable outcome.  It could not support it as a part of the disciplines on domestic regulation.  The delegation ad ded that, if the proponents continued to believe 
in the need for some sort of standard as part of the disciplines, they had to  put forward alternatives 
that offered more reasonable options, taking into  account the concerns that had been expressed. 
14. The representative of the United States
 indicated that the communication was to inform the 
debate on the "necessity test".  The representative recalled that the United States had long expressed 
concern about a necessity test in the context of the domestic regulation of services.  To the extent the 
desire for a necessity test was mo tivated by concerns about certain regulators disguising restrictions 
on international trade behind licensing and qualificati on requirements, the United States shared those 
concerns.  However, in the view of the United St ates, strong specific procedural disciplines negotiated 
through the WPDR, combined with existing GATS pr otections, provided all the legal tools Members 
need to address such trade-restrictive practices.  The delegation stated that the United States did not 
support a vague standard that gives primacy to tr ade concerns over the universe of other factors 
reasonable regulators must consider. 
15. The representative of Switzerland  wanted to respond to the rema rks by the Chairman as well 
as to the communication on the "necessity test".  He  thanked the Chairman on the efforts made to 
consult. He noted that, even if the consultati ons had developed in a good spirit, the result was a 
document with more drafting proposals than befo re such consultations had taken place.  The 
delegation considered that a text had to be produced  with limited square br ackets. He believed that 
Switzerland had shown a lot of flexibility in the p ast and it would continue to do so.  Switzerland 
wanted disciplines with a high level of ambition and fulfilment of all aspects of the mandate.  
16. As a reaction to the communication on the "necessi ty test", the representative of Switzerland 
noted that it was no secret that different, c ontrasting positions existe d.  He welcomed the 
communication because it was useful to nurture the debate.  He noted that the communication left 
open the door for alternatives.  Nonetheless, his own analysis diverged somewhat from that of the co-
sponsors.  With regard to the policy-objectives, he did not believe that the right to choose policy objectives was called into question.  Also, the repr esentative indicated that Switzerland did not accept 
that the test did not focus on the effects on trade flows.  He noted that all disciplines in the GATS 
were qualified by Article I of the GATS.  Hence, the scope was limited to measures that affect trade in 
services.  Moreover, the Annex on Telecommunications contained provisions that used the same 
words as those which Switzerland proposed.  The representative acknowledged that, when a clause 
was interpreted by a panel or the Appellate Body, it might give rise to an interpretation that was 
different from what a Member expected.  In the view of Switzerland, this was inevitable because a 
dispute showed that parties had diverging vi ews and that dispute settlement was necessary. 
17. The representative of Hong Kong, China
 shared the view that d espite intensive and long 
consultations, it was too early to produce a bracketed text. In his view, the process itself was the right 
one, but the outcome of it would depend on the attitude of the Members.  On the communication of Brazil, Canada and the United States, the representa tive noted that it was useful to consider and 
appreciate the concerns raised.  However, he was disa ppointed with regard to the clarity and quality of 
the arguments.  He had the feeling that the co-spons ors were talking about types of "necessity tests" 
that did not exist and had not been proposed. For inst ance, he noted that the argument that the test did 
not focus on the effect on trade was misplaced. In his view, the GATS was premised on the assumption that all measures within its scope had an e ffect on trade in services.  He also stated that 
every Member had the right to adopt measures fo r societal objectives.  However, the co-sponsors 
seemed to suggest that as long as the measures we re in compliance with Article XVI and were 
discriminatory, they did not care whether the measures were more burdensome to trade than S/WPDR/M/49 
Page 4  
 
  necessary.  He wondered whether the Members were prepared to do something about such measures. 
The representative also noted the comments on the ro le of panels and the Appellate Body.  He 
acknowledged that such concerns existed, but that it was a normal element of any dispute settlement 
system.  He finally asked the co-sponsors to dem onstrate the feasibility of alternatives that would 
address their concerns and asked for more clarity on these concerns. 
18. The representative of Norway
 thanked Brazil, Canada and the United States for what she 
believed was an important and tim ely contribution to the discussions on domestic regulation. She 
thought the communication captured well the key issues and concerns in the on-going discussions in relation to having a "necessity test" in the future di sciplines.  Norway shared the concerns that were 
expressed in the communication and believed that go od and balanced horizontal disciplines could be 
developed within the mandate of Article VI:4 of the GATS without introducing "necessity test" 
language.  The representative noted that discussions  on the "necessity test" had been undertaken 
several times without reaching consensus.  While keeping this in mind, Norway could be open to 
exploring and discussing alternatives to such a test, if that coul d help to reach a consensus. 
19. The representative of Ecuador
 thanked the co-sponsors for the communication and agreed 
with many points in the submission.  With rega rd to the process, the re presentative understood that 
there was a need to work harder, but reminded the Chair of the capacity constraints of small 
delegations.  
20. The views stated in the communication on the "necessity test" were also shared by the 
delegation of Turkey .  The representative indicated that he had already explained why Turkey had 
concerns with regard to this test.  Neverthel ess, he believed it was necessary to take on board the 
demands and expectations of all Members.  Ever y communication brought to the Working Party had 
to be given due consideration and be worked on, to  the extent practicable.  The representative recalled 
that the position of Turkey on the whole draft, in cluding the necessity test, would largely depend on a 
satisfactory development chapter.  He believed that  there should be a development chapter that was 
plain and operational.  This chapter had to meet the expectations of developing countries, in particular 
LDCs.  The representative believed that the Work ing Party had achieved some progress and had a 
plan on how to proceed.  He suggested continuing  working in the same format used since the 
beginning of the year.  Even if it might be impossibl e to bridge the gaps on all areas, he was confident 
that this group was able to develop compromi se texts that would be acceptable to all. 
21. This recognition of the useful work perform ed in the Working Party was echoed by the 
representative of Indonesia.    The representative supported the Chairman's plan to intensify 
consultations starting the week of 4 April.   With  regard to the "necessity test", Indonesia shared the 
views put forward by the delegations of the Un ited States, Canada and Brazil in their joint 
communication, particularly the argument that su ch a test would allow other WTO members to 
challenge the way the regulator chose to address th e non-trade concerns even with no demonstrated 
effect on trade, by claiming that another measure  could have been taken to achieve the same 
objective.   With regard to introducing a sectoral  test, the representative indicated that Indonesia was 
of the view that such a test would be very rest rictive and would lead to non-compliance by most 
developing country Members.  With regard to a horiz ontal test, the representative noted that, to date, 
the most restrictive form of such a test had been advanced.   The test would only permit regulations 
that were not just "necessary", but "necessary for quality  only".  In the view of the representative, only 
very few countries would be able to meet this threshold. 
22. The representative of Bangladesh  recognized that, despite best endeavours, the progress for 
developing disciplines remained insignificant.  He indicated that he would focus only on LDC-specific issues in his statement.  He noted that there was no reference to the position of LDCs in the 
introductory part of the Disciplines and that Bangla desh had made a number of proposals in this  S/WPDR/M/49 
 Page 5 
 
 
  regard.  He added that there was a need for a tr ansitional timeframe for LDCs that graduate to 
developing country Member-status. 
23. The representative of New Zealand  thanked the Chair for his intensive efforts to bring 
Members closer to consensus on a text.  She noted  that while the number of proposals had actually 
multiplied in the course of this exercise, she felt th at a thorough technical unde rstanding of the issues 
at play was achieved.  The representative indicat ed that New Zealand was prepared to throw 
everything they had into intensive drafting work in the format outlined for the week of 4 April, and 
was also prepared to engage with interested Members in other formats, especially on the second 
category of paragraphs flagged by the Chair, wher e more work on bridging the gaps in ambition was 
clearly needed.  However, she agreed that th e paucity of time did not allow for the wholesale 
introduction of new methods of working at this stag e.  She stressed that a change in mentality and 
flexibility, not a change in process, wa s what was needed to solve this.  
24. Turning to the paper tabled by Brazil, the United States and Canada, the representative of 
New Zealand supported the comments that had been made by Hong Kong, China and Switzerland on 
the substance and the underlying assumptions.  She welc omed all contributions to the debate on this 
important issue, but noted that the issue of necessi ty had been discussed over a long period in the 
Working Party and that they were well aware that th ere were divergent positions.  On this point, she 
strongly refuted the assertion made by Canada that th e Membership had reached consensus some time 
ago that a necessity test was not feasible.  It w as clear to New Zealand that this issue remained 
unresolved and divergences remained, but that ther e was a need to keep talking about it. The 
representative recognized that Members held valid c oncerns about the possible effect of a necessity 
test on regulatory freedom, and the uncertainty of pa nel interpretation.  However, she felt that these 
concerns could be addressed through careful design a nd drafting.  She wanted to reiterate that good 
regulators had nothing to fear from these disc iplines.  The representative expressed her 
disappointment that this paper failed to take into  account discussions already held, the options that 
were already tabled by Members that sought to a ddress some of the concerns expressed, and the fact 
that proponents of a necessity test had already expressed flexibility and a willingness to explore 
further drafting in response to such concerns.  Th e representative stressed that further discussions 
were worthwhile. 
25. The representative of the European Union  expressed his support for the work of the 
Chairman. With regard to the "necessity test", he believed the co-sponsors of the communication 
could have done better in providi ng arguments for not including such a test.  The representative noted 
that the European Union supported a test along the lines of its earlier submission on proportionality. 
26. The representative of India  thanked Brazil, Canada and the Un ited States for their joint paper. 
He noted that, while the Chairman had called upon th e Members to show flexibility, the statement by 
Canada on the "necessity test", which contained a cl ear rejection of such test no matter how it was 
formulated, appeared very strong and categorical .  He called upon Canada to show flexibility and 
creativity.  He then provided a number of preliminary comments on the communication.  He 
acknowledged the importance of the right to regulate,  the right to decide national objectives and their 
level of attainment.  In his view, the necessity t est should not question the necessity of the national 
objectives or their level of attainment, but the necessity of the measure chosen to achieve the 
objective.  India was willing to work with the proponents of the communication to alleviate this 
concern. 
27. The representative disagreed with the statement in the communication that the necessity test 
aimed at assessing the need of a measure irrespective of its effect of trade in services.  He did not 
think that this argument was correct.  In his view, the necessity test would always be applied through 
the prism of trade restrictiveness of a measure.  With regard to the argument that, according to the 
test, measures would only be permitted to achieve the quality of service, he thought that lot would S/WPDR/M/49 
Page 6  
 
  depend upon how the quality of service was defined.  In his view, this did not need to be a narrow 
objective covering only technical quality from a cons umer’s point of view only, but might cover 
things like reliability, efficiency, or other issu es like externalities associated with the supply of 
service. 
28. The representative of India was of the view that the mandate of Article VI:4 was clear in 
regard to having a necessity test.  Therefore, not having a necessity test would be a serious omission 
from the future disciplines.  Howe ver, India was open to having a su itable language to alleviate the 
concerns of various members and requested th e proponents of the communication to also show 
openness in the interest of taking our negotiations forward.  
29. Regarding the way forward in general, he tha nked the Chairman for circulating the detailed 
assessment in RD/SERV/52.  India was willing to engage in further discussions constructively and 
with an open mind.  However, he drew attention to the concern that was voiced earlier by India, that 
future discussion should not be structured in such  a way that would create any bias towards a merged 
text.  In his view, merging of pa ragraphs could be taken up and discussed after consensus was reached 
on the final language and level of ambition. 
30. With regard to the communication on the "neces sity test", the representative of Australia
 
stated that the positions of the co-sponsors on this issue and on the negotiations  more generally, were 
well-known.  This position was now reflected in this communication, which, in her view, was a 
position paper and nothing more.  Th e representative disagreed with many, if not all, of the premises 
underpinning the communication.  She recalled th at there was a very constructive discussion on the 
"necessity test" when this issue was addressed in the Working Part y and was disappointed that the 
communication ignored this discussion.  She did not feel that the communication was constructive and 
aimed to achieve convergence, as it did not contain an y proposals or textual suggestions.  With regard 
to the process, the representative did see value in discussions in the week  of 4 April in order to narrow 
down options.  It was no surprise that more options emerged when the Members were looking for drafting solutions. Members needed time to reflect on those.  Nonetheless, there was need for a new 
mind-set. Members had to be clear when they would not accept a proposal or not.  They also had to 
seek to engage in joint ownership of proposals which are more likely to achieve consensus, rather than 
to hang on to old proposals.  The representative expressed her hope that Members would be ready to 
negotiate during the upcoming discussions. 
31. The representative of Colombia
 congratulated the Chairman on his re-election and expressed 
appreciation for the Chairman's Assessment.  In  the negotiations, there had been some steps 
backwards and some proposals had brought ambition dow nward.  He felt that gaps were widening.  
While he recognized that there was no agreem ent amongst Members on the "necessity test", he 
disagreed with the views expressed in the join t communication from Canada, the United States and 
Brazil.  The subject was still on the table for discussi on and was called for in  Article VI:4 of GATS.  
A "necessity test" did not stand in the way of the right to regulate.  National systems very often 
already used such a test and mark et access commitments would only be  meaningful sense if such test 
was created.  He urged Members not to take extreme positions. 
32. The representative of Chinese Taipei  expressed appreciation for the drafting sessions 
conducted by the Chairman.  His delegation could go along with the Chairman's Assessment, as it 
agreed that there had been some convergences, but there were also many divergences.  As had been 
highlighted by the Chairman, a new "new mind-set" w ould be required for the week of 4 April.  This 
would require Members not to restate "what was wanted " but also "what they could live with".  In this 
connection, further information would be appreciat ed on the agenda and the method of work for the 
week of 4 April.  With regard to the joint co mmunication from Canada, US and Brazil, his delegation 
shared the view expressed in paragraph 7 of that communication that the list of objectives are not exhaustive and that Article VI:4 sets out the aims of the disciplines which included that requirements  S/WPDR/M/49 
 Page 7 
 
 
  are "not more burdensome than necessary to ensu re the quality of the service".  As long as the 
disciplines met those aims, this would be acceptable.  
33. The representative of Japan  expressed agreement with the Chairman's Assessment.  She 
appreciated the work that had been done, but rec ognized that there had not been sufficient progress.  
Whilst delegations understand each other's concer ns better now, it was necessary to advance the 
negotiations.  With regard to the joint communi cation from Canada, US and Brazil, her delegation 
believed that there was not a shared understanding on  what Article VI:4 required Members to do.  A 
shared understanding would need to be reached fi rst in order to have a constructive discussion. 
34. The representative of Korea  congratulated the Chairman on his re-election.  His delegation 
was of the view that "necessity test" elements shoul d be reflected, one way or  another, in the domestic 
regulation disciplines, for a number of reasons.  First, Members had a clear mandate in Article VI.4 to 
establish a "necessity test".  If there were no "necess ity test" provision, in any form, in the final 
outcome, then Members would not have fulfilled that mandate.  Second, the use of "necessity test" was not a new concept in the WTO.  Such test s were found in the SPS and TBT Agreements.  In 
services, "necessity test" provisions were found in the Accountancy Disciplines and Article VI.5 of 
the GATS.  Third, WTO jurisprudence had also demonstrated that a "necessity test" does not put 
excessively curb the ability of regulators to pursu e the legitimate objectives.  Korea understood the 
concerns of some Members that a "necessity test" may be sensitive, since it would be closely related 
to the regulator’s rights to regulate in pursuit of a legitimate policy objective.  With regard to the joint 
communication from Brazil, Canada and the United Stat es, Korea shared the view that the right to 
regulate should not be unduly restri cted by the introduction of a "necess ity test" in the disciplines.  In 
this regard, Korea would be open and flexible  to discussing with other Members on how those 
concerns could be addressed. 
35. The representative of Brazil
 noted that the discussions during the drafting sessions had been 
constructive but he was not sure whether it would be  possible to bridge gaps, given the large amount 
of work ahead.   His delegation would try to be flexible, but flexibility from others would also be 
required.  Concerning the reactions from Members to  the joint communication on the "necessity test", 
he underscored that if "doing better" meant accepting the positions of other Members, this would not 
be possible for his delegation. 
36. The representative of Egypt  congratulated the Chairman on his re-election and expressed 
support for the joint communicati on from Canada, United States and Brazil on the "necessity test".  
37. The representative of China  congratulated the Chairman on his re-election and noted that 
despite the tremendous efforts made, the level of convergence between Members had not been 
sufficient.  A change in mentality but not of pro cess was required.  He requested some clarification 
from the Chairman on how the meetings in Apri l would be organised.  Regarding the joint 
communication from Canada, United States and Brazil,  he noted that his delegation was not in a 
position to comment at present.  
38. The representative of Canada  was of the view that the process had started well with the 
"sweep" of the text.  Such an exercise could have  been quite productive as it would identify instances 
of convergence and areas where considerable differen ces remained, and would have been the first step 
in the development of a bracketed text.  However, the exercise had led instead to more options with 
up to three additional proposals for almost every para graph of the text, which was a step backwards.  
Elements on which there had been no agreement, such  as the "necessity test", or which did not appear 
crucial, had been re-introduced.  Rather than focusing on convergence, Members had now to try to 
understand what the rationale behind these changes was and, in quite a few cases, what the policy and 
legal implications would be.  It was stressed that  given the need to consult with capitals, this 
prolonged the deliberations, particularly when ne w issues emerge. Canada would like clear, practical S/WPDR/M/49 
Page 8  
 
  disciplines on domestic regulation, and appreciate the need to agree in "real- time" but stressed that 
discussions should be structured in a way so as not to  cut out capital-based expertise.  There were few 
indications in the text where convergence had been identified, and conversely no indications of where 
differences were particularly entrenched.  If serious  differences in positions remained, these should be 
reflected appropriately in the text.  
39. His delegation remained committed to doing its pa rt to craft good, workable, disciplines, but 
was not clear how it would be possible to make the transition from this exercise to a bracketed text.  
He stressed that the process ahead needed to be a bottom-up exercise and compromises needed to be 
Member-driven.  His delegation would have concerns  with any attempts to shift the onus on bridging 
these differences to the Chairman.  He highlighted that Canada, as well as a few other Members, had 
expressed an interest in using small groups, either in  Geneva or from capital to capital, to iron out key 
issues in the text by working on particular paragr aphs, so as to generate compromises and drafting 
solutions.  His delegation believed that such a pro cess would be critical and could be structured to 
maintain transparency in the process and give all interested Members who wanted to contribute, the 
opportunity to do so.  His delegation looked forward to working on the text, including through the use 
of small groups, and felt that given the time pressures, this method should be utilized.  
40. The representative of Mexico
 noted that the consultations undertaken by the Chairman had 
been necessary and useful.  Her delegation supp orted the views expressed by New Zealand, 
Switzerland and Colombia with respect to the jo int communication from Canada, Brazil and the US 
on the "necessity test".  In the Mexico's view the mandate in Article VI.4 of the GATS was clear in 
terms of what Members were requested to do.  
41. On behalf of delegations from small and vul nerable economies (SVE), the representative of 
Barbados  congratulated the Chairman on his re-appointment.  The joint communication from Canada, 
the United States and Brazil contained a number of  shared ideas, and SVE delegations would be 
reviewing it carefully so as to revert with comment s at the appropriate time.  As had been expressed 
by the delegation of New Zealand, the consultati ons undertaken by the Chairman had facilitated a 
good technical overview of all the issues at play in the deliberations.  However, she shared the 
Chairman's assessment that there had been a lack of convergence attained thus far, and substantive 
change was required in the mind-set of Members in  order to constructively advance.  She looked 
forward to further discussions in April, and hoped that  in the scheduling of meetings the constraints of 
small delegations as previously highlighted by  some Members would be taken into account. 
42. The representative of Uruguay  expressed appreciation for the difficult work undertaken by the 
Chairman.  He disagreed with the representative of Australia that difficulties were due to a lack of 
ambition.  Rather, the problem was "paralysed" am bition.  On the "necessity test", it was not a 
question of who could do better but how to r esolve differences.  The "necessity" provision was 
already in Article VI.4 and VI.5 of the GATS.  If there would be no "necessity test" in the domestic 
regulation disciplines, then existing rules as contai ned in this Article would remain applicable. 
43. The representative of the Philippines  congratulated the Chairman on his re-election.  His 
delegation supported the joint communication fro m Canada, the United States and Brazil on the 
"necessity test".  He highlighted that his delega tion disagreed with the conclusion drawn in the 
Secretariat background note that panels and the A ppellate Body had not questioned the objective of a 
measure, when examining existing "necessity tests".  
44. The Chairman  thanked the Members for their support.  On the process ahead, he noted that 
the discussions during the week of 4 April would be the final round of drafting to produce a bracketed 
text.  He noted that some delegations did have capac ity constraints, but there was no alternative to the 
week of 4 April, and that he would issue a progr amme for the week.  The purpose of discussions 
during that week would be to narrow down alterna tives.  He took note of the suggestion from the  S/WPDR/M/49 
 Page 9 
 
 
  representative of Canada for small group consultati ons and highlighted that Members could always 
meet amongst themselves, and that this had happene d previously.  He would encourage Members to 
consult each other but this should not take place during the week of 4 April, as that would be too late.  
He encouraged Members to submit any further langua ge before the week of 4 April.  There were 
already many options on table and much time ha d already been given for reflection and Members 
should be ready for compromise during that week.  He stressed that no decisions had so far been taken 
with respect to the final structure of the domestic re gulation text.  It was clear that the "necessity test" 
was the area of greatest divergence, and that he w ould try to consult with some delegations on this 
issue.  
45. On a separate item, he info rmed Members that the programme for the Workshop on 
Regulatory Practices, to be held on 11 April,  had been circulated in JOB/SERV/41.  
C. OTHER BUSINESS  
46. The Chairman extended the condolences of the Working Party to the people of Japan, 
particularly the families of the victims of the recent natural disasters.   
 
__________